Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Dilbert, if the picture that I "keep showing"...is different than the engine photgraped on Murray St., where would the landfill jet engine pics from the FEMA website, have come from? The landfill was closed on March 21, 2001, after operating since 1948. It was only reopened to receive WTC 9/11 rubble.
|
Let’s try this again, the land fill that you mention contains all the wreckage from the disaster, including all the parts of all the planes. The photo that you show in the land fill is clearly different then the one on Murray Street. There were 2 planes, with 2 engines each; this is from the other plane. Bottom line, the 2 are different. As for identification, I’m going to give up on it; it’s ludicrous for anyone with out training and direct access to it to identify it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
The following report indicates that it is doubtful than another WTC hijacked airliner engine combustion chamber was found...it was unprecedented that the flight and data recorder "black boxes were not found...
|
Every part of the plane was recovered, whether in a recognizable form or not, it all was found. The bright orange black boxes are located in the land fill, crushes and burned beyond recognition, but they are there. To think that some one would take the black box and get away with it is crazy; they're pretty heavy and not easy to walk off with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
<b>The rest of the quote boxes that follow, indicate to me that the authorities in charge of the 9/11 attacks "investigation" gave us information about what they found.....or in the case of the flight 175 and flight 11 "black boxes.....didn't find.....that defies credulity. The last quote box shows the DOJ admitting that FBI agents "looted" the WTC and Oklahoma Murrah building investigation scenes, for souveniers, and that Agent Marx, in charge of the Fresh Kill landfill WTC evidence, failed a polygraph and lied to investigators.
The FBI had no written policy, in Oklahoma in 1995 or after 9/11 that prohibited it's agents from looting evidence from those "terror" attacks.
|
The size of the black box matched against the total amount of rubble is the reason they are not found. And they are designed to survive a plane crash, not a falling building; most likely they were ripped to shreds in the collapse. And as for poly graphs, they are unreliable at best, so much that they are not admissible as evidence in a trial, its built on junk science and is not reliable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
No black boxes were recovered from the WTC, but a passport was.....no wreckage of flight 93 can be observed at the Shanksville "crash" site....but two passports (or visas) linked to two of the nineteen hijackers were said to be recovered there.
|
Sure, they are light and may have been blown out of the building; strange things are recovered from all disasters. But this is just irrelevant, unless you are claiming that they were planted evidence, if you are, just come out and say it, and then back it up.
As for no wreckage at the crash site of flight 93, did you just not look?
From
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200060-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200061-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200062-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200063-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200064-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200065-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200066-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200068-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200069-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/PA00109-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/PA00109-2.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/PA00111-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200057-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200058-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200059-1.jpg
As to your second post, I must admit I am guilty of being arrogant in my certainty, I trusted your comparison of the 2 engines, the one found on Murray Street and the one in the land fill, you said that they were the same, and the land fill picture was a higher quality version of the Murray street engine, you were wrong, they are clearly 2 different engines, but since I did not check you, instead trusting you could see if to photos were of the same object (I thought a valid assumption) I did all my identification on the picture from the land fill, which I still think looks like a CF6. But no, the picture on Murray Street I still think is unidentifiable by me, or you, or anyone else on this forum. To me the Murray Street has similar features to a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D, but could really be anything.
And lastly, host please stop revising your old post in this thread, its hard to have an honest conversation if you keep changing the record of your post. Change spelling, punctuation etc, but don’t change and add things to your old post.
cause that's just lame.